Covid-19 Hospitalizations of the Vaccinated are Climbing - Vaccines Need Redefining?

Friday, September 24, 2021

As those who are "fully vaccinated" against Covid-19 become a larger share of hospital inpatients being treated for Covid-19, perhaps some re-examination of the word "VACCINE" is in order.


Definition of Vaccine: www.dictionary.com...

"Any preparation used as a preventive inoculation to confer immunity against a specific disease, usually employing an innocuous form of the disease agent, as killed or weakened bacteria or viruses, to stimulate antibody production."


The Fully Vaccinated are becoming a larger share of Hospitalized Covid-19 patients: thevaccinereaction.org...

Since 17% to 25% of those hospitalized with Covid-19 HAVE BEEN FULLY VACCINATED against Covid-19, and the percentage of Covid-19 hospitalizations are increasingly vaccinated individuals, do the experimental drugs produced by Pfizer, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson still qualify as "vaccines", in the traditional sense?

Maybe these Covid-19 "vaccines" need to be given a name other than "vaccine", since their effectiveness is not that great to begin with, and begins to decline after just 90 days? (In other words, they give the word "vaccine" a bad name.)

Or, should the overall definition of "vaccine" be broadened and watered down to accommodate these Covid-19 vaccines?

-CareWeMust

originally posted by: [post=26129204]carewemust[/post/]

... Maybe these Covid-19 "vaccines" need to be given a name other than "vaccine", since their effectiveness is not that great to begin with, and begins to decline after just 90 days? (In other words, they give the word "vaccine" a bad name.) ...

Like "clot shot" or "death jab?" Yeah, I like that

originally posted by: incoserv

originally posted by: [post=26129204]carewemust[/post/]

... Maybe these Covid-19 "vaccines" need to be given a name other than "vaccine", since their effectiveness is not that great to begin with, and begins to decline after just 90 days? (In other words, they give the word "vaccine" a bad name.) ...

Like "clot shot" or "death jab?" Yeah, I like that

An HONEST medical person would have to say: "Get this VACCINE...you'll reduce your odds of being hospitalized by 80% for a few months!"

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: incoserv

originally posted by: [post=26129204]carewemust[/post/]

... Maybe these Covid-19 "vaccines" need to be given a name other than "vaccine", since their effectiveness is not that great to begin with, and begins to decline after just 90 days? (In other words, they give the word "vaccine" a bad name.) ...

Like "clot shot" or "death jab?" Yeah, I like that

An HONEST medical person would have to say: "Get this VACCINE...you'll reduce your odds of being hospitalized by 80% for a few months!"

...of course there are some notable side-effects, like 3rd eyeball, spontaneous hee-hawing, disappearing foot and, what's that last one...oh yeah...death.

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: incoserv

originally posted by: [post=26129204]carewemust[/post/]

... Maybe these Covid-19 "vaccines" need to be given a name other than "vaccine", since their effectiveness is not that great to begin with, and begins to decline after just 90 days? (In other words, they give the word "vaccine" a bad name.) ...

Like "clot shot" or "death jab?" Yeah, I like that

An HONEST medical person would have to say: "Get this VACCINE...you'll reduce your odds of being hospitalized by 80% for a few months!"

I would bet that would work better than the way it's currently being done. if they were just honest and tell everyone the over 65 is going to need this, as they are highest risk, and everyone else is low risk, but the vaccine helps with severity and can save lives. If you stopped there, and let everyone know they could get the shot free, and no more pushing or mandates was used, we would likely have a much higher rate of vaccinated. The constant pressure and very strange seeming push is largely driving the hesitancy, at least it is for me, plus I have already had it. So I don't need the shot. based on "science", the kind that Fauci doesn't understand.

Vaccination was supposed to save the healthcare system
by
not making you sick enough to be admitted to the hospital.

yes, you are still in pain.
yes, you are bed ridden.
yes, you have blood clots,
yes, your O2 levels are down,
yes, you have to stay home from work.
yes, you are still sick as a dog.

But the great news is you don't have to go to the hospital.

Except . . . well . . . you still have to go to the hospital.

I know . . . we can redefine a vaccine using the same words we use for "placebo".

Problem solved.

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: incoserv

originally posted by: [post=26129204]carewemust[/post/]

... Maybe these Covid-19 "vaccines" need to be given a name other than "vaccine", since their effectiveness is not that great to begin with, and begins to decline after just 90 days? (In other words, they give the word "vaccine" a bad name.) ...

Like "clot shot" or "death jab?" Yeah, I like that

An HONEST medical person would have to say: "Get this VACCINE...you'll reduce your odds of being hospitalized by 80% for a few months!"

Let’s look at the effectiveness of some common vaccines that have been around for a while:

“CDC conducts studies each year to determine how well influenza (flu) vaccines protect against flu. While vaccine effectiveness (VE) can vary, recent studies show that flu vaccination reduces the risk of flu illness by between 40% and 60% among the overall population during seasons when most circulating flu viruses are well-matched to those used to make flu vaccines.”

www.cdc.gov...

“The HPV vaccine works extremely well. In the 10 years after the vaccine was recommended in 2006 in the United States, quadrivalent type HPV infections decreased by 86% in female teens aged 14 to 19 years and 71% in women in their early 20s.”

www.cdc.gov...

“ Systematic review of dengue vaccine efficacy”

“To evaluate the efficacy of Dengue vaccine, a systematic review with a meta-analysis was conducted using randomized controlled clinical trials published between 2000 and 2017 that were identified in the MEDLINE databases via PubMed, LILACS, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE. The selection was performed by two reviewers independently, with disagreements resolved by a third reviewer.

Results

Seven clinical trials were included, with a total of 36,371 participants (66,511 person-years) between the ages of 2 and 45 years. The meta-analysis using the random-effects model estimated the efficacy of the vaccine at 44%, with a range from 25 to 59%…”

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

“Vaxchora® has been reported to reduce the chance of severe diarrhea in people by 90% at 10 days after vaccination and by 80% at 3 months after vaccination.?”

www.cdc.gov...

The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines start out with an efficacy above 90% and decline to a number around 80% on a time scale of 6 months or so. It actually varies between the two products, with the Moderna product being noticeably stronger. Not very different from Cholera vaccines, actually. Nobody has proposed redefining Cholera vaccines. Why should the mRNA vaccines be any different?

originally posted by: incoserv

originally posted by: [post=26129204]carewemust[/post/]

... Maybe these Covid-19 "vaccines" need to be given a name other than "vaccine", since their effectiveness is not that great to begin with, and begins to decline after just 90 days? (In other words, they give the word "vaccine" a bad name.) ...

Like "clot shot" or "death jab?" Yeah, I like that

I really like those.

They are fitting.

Anybody else remember when vaccines actually protected you?

I memba

a reply to: 1947boomer

Ya'd think they'd get it right by now 🧞‍♀️

Is that supposed to sound somehow bad?

Read it again and tell me if that's going to put you off?

If that was tablets you took you'd go for that right?


a reply to: carewemust

Like a flu shot that's usually 50-60 percent effective you mean?


a reply to: eXia7

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: 1947boomer

Ya'd think they'd get it right by now 🧞‍♀️

Is it possible these two ladies sneezed on, and rubbed their hands on, the armrests of the chair that Kamala Harris would be using?

The View - Cohosts had to leave: www.foxnews.com...

a reply to: 1947boomer

You completely missed the point, it's very obvious. OP argues that since the new vaccines are not good they paint all the others in a bad light.

And it went completely over your head. The only thing you proved is you will not comprehend and you will not stop trying to compare it with traditional ones, that are effective to a some degrees.

You're basically harming real vaccines when you compare your lovely jab to them. Do you do that by intent or are you just not aware about it?

originally posted by: TheMirrorSelf

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: incoserv

originally posted by: [post=26129204]carewemust[/post/]

... Maybe these Covid-19 "vaccines" need to be given a name other than "vaccine", since their effectiveness is not that great to begin with, and begins to decline after just 90 days? (In other words, they give the word "vaccine" a bad name.) ...

Like "clot shot" or "death jab?" Yeah, I like that

An HONEST medical person would have to say: "Get this VACCINE...you'll reduce your odds of being hospitalized by 80% for a few months!"

...of course there are some notable side-effects, like 3rd eyeball, spontaneous hee-hawing, disappearing foot and, what's that last one...oh yeah...death.

Those are more likely after the 90-day maximum protection period.

originally posted by: ThatDamnDuckAgain
a reply to: 1947boomer

You completely missed the point, it's very obvious. OP argues that since the new vaccines are not good they paint all the others in a bad light.

And it went completely over your head. The only thing you proved is you will not comprehend and you will not stop trying to compare it with traditional ones, that are effective to a some degrees.

You're basically harming real vaccines when you compare your lovely jab to them. Do you do that by intent or are you just not aware about it?

Maybe you missed the point.

Your statement that the new vaccines are “not good” is objectively false. When compared to pre-existing vaccines, the new vaccines have an effectiveness right in the same range. That range is greater than 50% and less than 100%. It’s totally irrational to say that an HPV vaccine with an effectiveness of 71% is “good” but a Covid vaccine with an effectiveness of 80% is “bad”. How do you refute that?

The OP is trying to make the argument that the new vaccines should be in a different category based on their effectiveness, but their effectiveness is not particularly different from many pre-existing vaccines. If you want to put the new vaccines in a different category you have to do it on som basis other than effectiveness.

a reply to: 1947boomer

Does this vaccine give you long term protection like most other vaccines? Common cold excluded wich is basically an educated guess on the strain?

I will answer: No it does not. You're already hearing about booster shots.

How many people will be killed if they decide that your beloved experimental vaccines are useless as they show to be currently, and project that impression onto every other vaccine? Why do you want to create confusion and misery by defending this?

These are the same arguments you used in the past, just now they fit for you too.

originally posted by: nonspecific
Like a flu shot that's usually 50-60 percent effective you mean?


a reply to: eXia7

Nah like real vaccines.

originally posted by: ThatDamnDuckAgain
a reply to: 1947boomer

……..

How many people will be killed if they decide that your beloved experimental vaccines are useless as they show to be currently….

Not sure why you’ve come to the conclusion that the new vaccines are showing to be “useless”.